QUOTE(LifeMirage @ Feb 10, 2009, 02:00 AM)

Can you cite a study showing taking B-Vitamins results in any meaningful amounts being excreted?
Let's look at a simple description of the metabolism of water soluble vitamins ("vitamin." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Feb. 2009):
Water-soluble vitamins usually are excreted in the urine of humans. Thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, pantothenic acid, and biotin appear in urine as free vitamins (rather than as coenzymes); however, little free niacin is excreted in the urine. Products (also called metabolites) that are formed during the metabolism of thiamin, niacin, and vitamin B6 also appear in the urine. Urinary metabolites of biotin, riboflavin, and pantothenic acid also are formed. Excretion of these vitamins (or their metabolites) is low when intake is sufficient for proper body function. If intake begins to exceed minimal requirements, excess vitamins are stored in the tissues. Tissue storage capacity is limited, however, and, as the tissues become saturated, the rate of excretion increases sharply. Unlike the other water-soluble vitamins, however, vitamin B12 is excreted solely in the feces. Some folic acid and biotin also are normally excreted in this way.QUOTE(LifeMirage @ Feb 10, 2009, 02:00 AM)

I don't think most people get enough (not simply enough to prevent a deficiency but to have health benefits)
That's a very general statement. Perhaps you could firm it up with some scientific evidence to indicate that there are your implied "health benefits" from taking levels of "B" vitamins over those required to prevent deficiency.
QUOTE(LifeMirage @ Feb 10, 2009, 02:00 AM)

Many compounds don't get metabolized and are excreted intact, however it has no bearing on it having no effect or being a waste.
Eh? What's that got to do with paying for aggressively marketed supplements with the implication that are they beneficial to naive healthy individuals who do not necessarily need them. Those individuals would be better advised to improve their diets and would then obtain all of the essential nutrients and micronutrients along with the essential roughage that really is in short supply in the modern processed food menu.
QUOTE(Orbz @ Feb 10, 2009, 07:03 AM)

I agree, using the argument- why take more vitamins if they are just going to be excreted?- seems to be pharmacological double standards. The case is also true that if you take more methamphetamine, you excrete more methamphetamine, and we all know what happens when you take more methamphetamine....
So you are saying that even if there is no indication for a dietary supplement, one should still take them, even though there is evidence that excess over normal requirements is excreted (and is thus a waste of time and money)? Your methamphetamine example does not support the case for taking an excess of essential nutritional factors that are found in sufficient quantities in a typical diet, but when the required intake level is exceeded provide no extra nutritional or metabolic advantage. (Recommended intake levels can be found here:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/I...pplements.aspx)The benefits of many supplemented dietary components, including vitamins, over and above the intake from a balanced diet, are often shown to be not conclusive and are on occasions even harmful. With respect to the "B" vitamins, niacin >100mg can impair liver function. Who knows what the intake levels are of OTC products taken by self-dosing members of the general public? Have you seen the font size on some of the OTC bottles, labels and datasheets (if included)? But I'm not really trying to say that vitamin overdosing is a great toxicological problem; rather, that a lot of money is going down the drain (often literally). And, of course, there are instances of clinical illness due to vitamin deficiency (e.g. B12 impaired absorption with possible required cyanocobalamin therapy), or where clinical recommendations for a temporary increase in intake levels are appropriate (esp B6 - folate).